Thank you for your thoughts and suggestions! You make a lot of interesting points, including your comments on competitive pricing relative to self-hosting FMS, passing economies of scale to agencies, and trade-off's of license fees vs. subscriptions. Rest assured that we are considering all of them as we work towards creating a pricing model.

As you are already aware, most pricing models mirror cost structures incurred by companies. Your example of car insurance pricing maps very well to the price-cost alignment approach. In most cases, the longer you keep an insurance policy the better pricing you get. Part of reason behind better pricing is that there is no (or very minimal) incremental cost incurred by the insurance company to support you for each incremental year. The big constraint in all of this is that you need to maintain your driving record and any insurance claim will typically increase pricing. In fact with every year the insurance company lowers your price because they have a more accurate "risk profile" of you which maps to their cost structure in supporting you.

But why am I mentioning all of this? The reason is that, unlike the insurance product, a platform-as-a-service offering has considerable on-going costs associated with managing, maintaining, and upgrading the infrastructure. Usage (rather than time) is a better metric for availing reduced pricing and as you mention we will be sharing with you cost synergies due to economies of scale.

We hope that in most cases "Cocomo-powered" applications will be so compelling that usage will increase with time, which will in turn mean attractive pricing for agencies. Regardless, there are other alternatives available to agencies so any pricing we propose needs to be competitive and attractive for Adobe and our customers to be successful long-term.